Except I've never made any bones of what I am. Whereas you calculatedly conceal your real loyalties, and everyone can see it. I am amoral, and I've never pretended to be anything but. You on the other hand, along with other "secret" altright / "classical liberals" love to cloak yourselves in acceptability and try to seem like anything but what you really are.
That's a bold claim. Why don't you let me examine your evidence?
And that is far less of an argument about Sargon and Shapiro when Andrew Anglin endorsed Sargon, and explicitly called him a gateway to the alt-right, with numerous other gross little creatures voicing similar opinions, and a number of people testified that they fell into the alt-right, wouldn't you know it, starting via Shapiro and Sargon's youtube videos.
Yes, and I'm sure a number of people started with weed before moving on to something more serious, like meth or heroin. Does that mean anybody who smokes marijuana will start using harder drugs? No. Hell, it doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't have used hard drugs if they hadn't smoked pot.
And have you considered the possibility that these alt-right figures were lying in an attempt at accelerationism (for lack of a better word)? There are plenty of alt-righters who've admitted they want to increase tensions, if not outright start a conflict. Not necessarily saying they were, just that it's a possibility given what we know about the alt-right.
You were the one who first linked to the Kiwifarms wiki. That's on you. Don't try and deflect it on Skybison.
Oh, so now I just linked to the wiki! Well, that's not what you claimed I did earlier:
He quite openly referenced a Kiwifarms trans conspiracy theory, didn't see anything wrong with it for the longest time, and only retracted when it was brought to the forum's attention much later.
Ref?
Thank you
Not liking the movie is a problem issue because you kept trying to shift the discussion to "is there not a good reason to dislike it?" When the discussion topic was about the various alt-right trolls and agents bombarding the flick with negativity.
No, the discussion topic was about Russian bots allegedly stirring up hatred against TLJ. I
did some digging and proved that the narrative was based on a very flawed study and said study's conclusions were greatly exaggerated. And
you're the one who shifted the discussion to whether there were good reasons to dislike it with this:
The backlash primarily came from literal human garbage that has no business in prominence.
But then, we've dealt with guys who carry water for salty, bigoted nerdwads before.
Why don't you join dave in the liars' corner? Then again, I should've expected dishonesty from a sociopath.
And wouldn't you look at THAT - the website you trust and linked to was, on a little trip to Rationalwiki, easily proven to be a libertarian rag. They've hosted holocaust deniers, reconstructionists like Gary North, and supporters of Apartheid. Not exactly a reasonable website. They deny climate change, and have quite a loathsome crowd of readers. Ergo, they have quite a vested interest in protecting the esteem of a right wing indoctrination center like Covington Catholic. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if that school made being a Democrat an expellable offense.
Giving someone a platform isn't endorsing their views. MSNBC had Pat Buchanan on its payroll for years. You know, the same "paleoconservative" asshole left-wingers and right-wingers alike have repeatedly denounced as an anti-Semite? Should we say MSNBC hates Jews as much as he does? And why would a climate-change denying outlet publish an article like
this?
No doubt Reason has its biases. I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if they didn't. But so does Rational Wiki and just about every other publisher (for want of a better term). Rejecting everything Reason says just because of its biases is downright fallacious.
Even if your characterization of Reason is right, that doesn't mean the article is wrong. Have you watched
the full video?
David Hogg never tried to intimidate a Native American veteran and has been nothing but peaceful, while that vile little cretin has gone about suing just about everyone who published a nonflattering account of his aggressive actions. Sounds like he'll be a new Trump in a few years.
Neither did Sandmann. Smiling at somebody beating a drum in your face is not "trying to intimidate" them. And he's suing them for defamation. Was it wrong for
Richard Jewell to sue the outlets that almost ruined his life over something he never did?
Since we're on the topic, I have a direct question. Were the death threats Sandmann received wrong?
Also, can I talk to the mods? Publicly?
one more for the paragon pile: that same "chop up my opponent's post and respond to each section individually" style. one, maybe two, paragon bells can be chalked up to coincidence but at this point, nah
In fairness, that's how I reply to a lot of posts.
Wait, am I Paragon?
Nah, I'd say the real Paragon was the friends we made along the way.
Recent Posts